rsonin gets on my case because I won’t make accusations about who did what.
I’m not on your case because you won’t make accusations. I’m on your case because you reject an entirely plausible explanation without offering a more plausible alternative. All you can say is “I don’t believe it.” I don’t care what you can or can’t believe.
Plenty of people can’t believe that the Pentagon was even hit by a plane, despite insurmountable evidence. I don’t care what they can or can’t believe. I note that hundreds of witnesses saw a plane hit the building, that plane parts were found in the building, and so on. Just because the real world does not behave as you expect is no reason to question the real world. It is a reason to question what you expected.
And, for what it’s worth, I do think that you are ignorant of one thing here, and that is how these kinds of structures work as systems to take the loads that are placed on them. Each element fits into an intricate system, and there is only so much of that system that can be eliminated before the whole thing fails. If you have a table with five legs, you can usually remove two and the table will stand. But remove a third, and all is lost. That is what happened to the WTC. The holes, in combination with the fire, weakened the structure of a small area (1-2% of the whole), and when that small part failed, it led to a chain reaction that brought the whole thing down.
How many bad sectors do you need on a hard drive before the whole thing is unusable? Depends on the sectors, and if they are key, then the drive can fail even though most of it, by far, is in perfect woking order.
How many bad parts do you need in an engine before it fails? How many bridges do you need to bomb to paralyse your enemy’s railroads? How many pages of a textbook need to be missing before the whole thing no longer makes sense - which pages?
If you have some plausible explanation as to why the towers should have remained standing longer than they did, than say so.